Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    4319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. Me too. (still somewhat blinded though...and honestly not sure what my better half is on about half the time...)
  2. The simplifying to an idealization "trap"? (allowing focus on what is actually significant) An infinite mass box can (obviously) exchange all the momentum any particle requires, while allowing the particle to maintain the same energy it had without exchanging any at all. You can ignore the box's temperature in an idealization, or add more assumptions to your model. (just be clear when you do this to be fair to other posters) Your beef seems to be with standard/accepted idealizations (and perhaps Youtube...), the limits of which are generally well known. +1 for admitting that, but let's be fair with one another.
  3. Why would you want to spend more on training? Perhaps for more training toward the correct approach? Or do you just wind them up and send them in a different direction?
  4. So question...Do you think the current training efforts would be sufficient, if they were re-focused as you would like, with no additional expenditures?
  5. I asked a question. I put no words in your mouth. Did you contradict "the police should not be given more money to train, they have enough already" in that post? If so, or if somehow not, either way...how do you come to that conclusion?
  6. So you are okay with the current level of training (5 hours a year in some cases), as long as it is focused on de-escalation and other non physical tactics and strategies?
  7. I get what you're saying but isn't this completely negligible compared to the difference between the energy levels, of all particles randomly appearing on one side of the box... vs them being forced there by work being done on them? (in the category of nit-picking an idealization? )
  8. Powell looked great up to the point he was the spokesman for US intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction Iraq supposedly had.
  9. From reading this part of the post: If he thought more force was always better, why would he say that?
  10. How can you read Alex's post and draw this inference?
  11. Dim, it's not that you contradicted any of your own posts...It's you directly strawmanning what you were quoting.
  12. Agree. If they aren't trained they may be more apt to reach for a gun....or more apt to use it. When fighting straw men, verbal techniques are no doubt best. (he said quite the opposite of what you're suggesting)
  13. You insist on removing a potentially less fatal option, regardless of how many options you might hope are available, possibly in some circumstances a (real) dichotomy where it's the least likely to be lethal, and possibly the only one that could save the cop.
  14. I think I'd rather be put in a choke hold by a well trained and well meaning cop (they do exist) than shot by the same.
  15. Where did you get that? (I googled Willik but got nothing)
  16. I'd be embarrassed to admit how many hours i've wasted in the tub thinking about that one... (in my defence...never an hour at one time)
  17. Electromagnetic forces "within" an object can introduce internal stresses but this doesn't make it lighter. Electromagnetic forces "on" an object can make it effectively lighter. (this could be considered to be thrust) What definition of "free space" are you using? If isolated the object would have nothing to push against (though simply radiating photons would give thrust). If just not in a gravitational field the same lightening electromagnetic forces would amount to thrust.
  18. Fair enough. I agree with that, and the numbers are tied to the disparate experience. What are the root causes?
  19. So you believe that's the majority of the problem?
  20. It may be. It's a sensitive topic. Ignoring it may be a problem as well. True, according to the Wiki link you provided: "Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of White victims killed by Whites and 93% of African American victims killed by African Americans." Proximity is certainly a factor, but not the only one. It's not an inherent function of race, so if that's what you mean I agree. The Wiki link you provided again: "According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with Whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost eight times higher than Whites, and the victim rate six times higher." Much of this depends on the US police/judicial system (including the source of the stats). If you choose to discount that 100% (even when/where if it isn't true), and instead choose to believe the disparities in crime and incarceration rates are all on them, are you going to solve the problem? You vilify (almost) all police/justices, and let other socio economic factors off the hook...why change any of that...let's just blame the police...even the good ones. Not saying you do that...but why wouldn't anyone if they believed the crime rate was exactly the same (despite the conditions) and looked at the conviction/incarceration rates? Let's not worry about poverty...let's abolish the police...like that will help.
  21. As in government (as Americans say "we the people") mandated solutions, or government to enforce fair laws (racially blind except where egregious inequity exists) plus hopefully everyone?
  22. I don't see the drug use (here slightly higher for Whites) or selling of drugs (here slightly higher for Blacks) disparities being statistically significant. Not enough to suspect that whites may be inherently more likely to commit crimes. The arrest/incarceration graphs are another matter. How much of that is due to police/judicial discrimination, how much due to police/judicial focus on type of drugs (I'm making an assumption that it reasonably could be due to differences in danger or other factors), and how much due to other socio economic effects? (not intended as rhetorical questions) Agree with both. I agree with that. But by whom? We are directly responsible for some disparities, and less so on others. We need to look at all root causes if we want to solve anything. Racism is just one of them, and IMO it's not primary, though it may become so. It certainly was in the past.
  23. Why would you suggest that? Is it not reasonable to assume that given reasonably equivalent conditions, we can expect reasonably equivalent outcomes? Why would you suspect it could be lower for Blacks? We have plenty of biases in our systems. They aren't all racial driven, despite the difficulties in separating the motives.
  24. Socio economic situation? I would expect equivalency, but would also be hard pressed to trust any data or manipulation of it. Socio economic status? I would certainly expect more white collar crimes from those groups more affluent, and more street crimes from those groups less so. (but not enough to differentiate individuals on that basis, and certainly not by race) I don't believe the races (to the degree people can be subdivided) are inherently any different in this. Why do you believe it might be lower for Blacks?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.